Collaboration between archeology and oral traditions can produce an understanding of ancient North America that scientific discoveries could have difficulty producing on their own, but unfortunately, scholars still dispute the historicity of verbal literature. Echo-Hawk asserts the need to combine the two to obtain not only in-depth results from NAGPRA investigations but also to integrate a vivid picture of early American history. A continuous narrative runs through Echo-Hawk's article, emphasizing that a more inclusive and effective study of oral traditions can improve knowledge of cultural affiliations and provide insight into the social and physical migration of Native Americans in ancient times. This summary will touch on key points addressed by Echo-Hawk, NAGPRA procedures, and general criticism and evaluation of oral traditions; its principle of memorability and the world of the Pleistocene. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Native American Graves and Repatriations Act (NAGPRA) was established in 1990 with the purpose of protecting and returning cultural property to direct descendants of or culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. In recent years there has been an increase in recognition of the historical value of oral traditions with some scholars considering oral traditions when researching antiquity, however, NAGPRA investigations rely predominantly on archaeological evidence to discern these recipients, as data osteological and artifacts, although the act itself encourages the use of oral literature. Most scholars tend to favor archaeological findings to establish these tribal connections and their respective timelines. Echo-Hawk points out that for the few scholars who embraced oral literature, the results presented were somewhat more impressive than their counterparts, as such, research into ancient history cannot be purely objective but must also contain elements of subjectivity. Perhaps due to the infrequent use of oral literature, or the possible obstacles to tribal relations arising from the solicitation and evaluation of oral traditions, the analysis of such lacks a “strong disciplinary infrastructure”. In contrast to NAGPRA, archaeologists and scholars are hesitant when making definitive cultural or tribal connections and tend to be more intricate with their research, and although Echo-Hawk promotes the inclusion of oral traditions in historical investigations, it also insists that which should not be taken as literal history. With this encouragement, Echo-Hawk outlines the necessary precautions to take when mixing objective archaeological evidence with subjective oral traditions. Vansina's three-level hourglass model, to which Echo-Hawk refers, reflects the inevitable transitions of verbal literature in the interest of conservation. Inferences from oral traditions can be classified based on verbal literature constructed solely for entertainment, unambiguous accounts of ancient historical events, or a collaboration of both, with factual specifics encrusted in entertaining fables. To distinguish them, Echo-Hawk devised a series of three tests that include the idea that the verbal literature considered should fall into Vansina's third level of "chaotic chronology"; it should not deviate from its original context and, if so, it must remain fictitious and must be authenticated by previous archaeological data and in conjunction with the general historical chronology. According to Echo-Hawk,these tests will confirm the historicity of the verbal literature, or perhaps stimulate further archaeological research if the traditions do not match the scientific findings. However, it should not be forgotten that osteological and artefactual data will still take precedence should they contradict verbal findings and therefore cannot be ignored. It can therefore be inferred that scientific data will often be considered by scholars to be more revealing of historical insights than verbal literature, which is why they are more biased in their use. The supposed longevity of oral traditions also encourages their predilection for archaeological evidence. Archaeological data is considered more effective at representing history due to its ability to carry historical data across extremely long periods of time. At the moment, there is not much evidence for this view as no time frame has yet been established for how long oral traditions can stand the test of time, however, Echo-Hawk estimates the expiration will be around 40,000 years. of the developments of complex social interactions within environments that populate multigenerational members. "Story telling" among these generations, especially traditions that provided moral lessons or described a tribe's origin or migration history, would have endured for thousands of years, often altered by those who told them. The Echo-Hawk Principle of Memorability outlines the inevitable changes that an oral tradition encounters due to its malleability, this contrasts greatly with archaeological data as it is purely scientific and therefore not open to interpretation. Often, for the benefit of longevity and entertainment, stories are shaped by each of their narrators, for example, specific historical references are omitted to enhance recall, and other events are dramatized to create an exciting narrative. This gives rise to the idea that ancient historical information that has been embellished with non-historical elements is more likely to survive over time and be passed down to each generation. However, because oral literature is so easy to manipulate, authentic historical data can potentially be understood, and as a result, the term "pseudo-history" is used among scholars. Pseudo-history connotes a false or artificial representation of history, suggesting that oral traditions lack factual integrity with respect to scientific findings. While we can recognize, through the principle of memorability, why oral traditions are still present and how they have been so memorable to each generation, it also calls attention to the traits that have hindered the credibility of these traditions as historical data, justifying the attitude of a scholar. decision to avoid them. Stories of emergence and migration illustrate life in the early Quaternary period and can provide context that archaeological evidence omits when unattached. There is, however, great uncertainty about the authenticity of stories of emergence and migration as they are vulnerable to alteration with each different perspective. The stories of the Arikara emergence, while embodying similar ideas, still conflict in specific details. For example, migration leader “Mother Corn” is said to have faced several obstacles. Overall, the stories describe an "impassable body of water, a great forest, and a deep canyon", however, all of these differ in their order of appearance and where a story will describe the water as "wide, thick ice and deep water ". ” another will state “an island on the great waters”. Additionally, an existing version of the Arikara origin story, collected and.